Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: TOOTMO Date: Dec 22, 2012 5:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead - Hard to believe

You're a lawyer, aren't you?

Are you saying that the case was wrongly affirmed?


Kindly,
Judge TOOTMO

This post was modified by TOOTMO on 2012-12-23 01:14:32

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Dec 22, 2012 6:44pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead - Hard to believe

Well, I don't practice in Iowa, but I find it incredible that the court states that the decision to terminate was not based on her gender. This is the distinction they try to draw, which I don't think passes the "laugh test":

Nelson’s arguments warrant serious consideration, but we ultimately think a distinction exists between (1) an isolated employment decision based on personal relations (assuming no coercion or quid pro quo), even if the relations would not have existed if the employee had been of the opposite gender, and (2) a decision based on gender itself. In the former case, the decision is driven entirely by individual feelings and emotions regarding a specific person. Such a decision is not gender- based, nor is it based on factors that might be a proxy for gender.

YET, he fired her because his wife wanted her fired because she found her a threat to their marriage. Would that have happened had she been a he? He also told her husband that he was afraid he would try and have an affair with her. If anything, there seems to be some sexual harassment involved (telling her that if she saw a bulge in his pants that meant that her clothes were too tight), but for whatever reason, a claim for sexual harassment was not part of the case. Not knowing all the facts, it just seems like this case will now allow Iowa employers to hide behind discminatory reasons for terminating by just saying, "Oh, I found her/him too sexy for my comfort, so I had to let her/him go." Seems crazy to me, but I don't have all the facts. Interesting to speculate if this would be an unanimous decision if there had been a woman on the court.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)